Summary
In Holloman, the defendant was a tenant on the Shows' farm. There was some trouble between Shows and Holloman or Holloman's father.
Summary of this case from Miller v. StateOpinion
No. 27211.
June 11, 1928.
ARSON. Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction for arson.
Evidence in prosecution for the crime of arson held insufficient to sustain conviction.
APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, First district; HON. R.S. HALL, Judge.
Haralson Hall, for appellant.
We think that the circuit judge should have sustained the motion of the appellant, in that the defendant should be dismissed on the grounds that the state had failed to make a case out against the appellant. We base this on the following cases, to-wit: In Strong v. State (Miss.), 23 So. 392, the court speaking through Judge TERRALL: "At the November term, 1897, of the circuit court of De Soto county, Gilbert Strong was convicted of arson and was sentenced to the penitentiary for seven years. It was in evidence that the barn and stable of J.B. West, situated in said county was destroyed by fire on the 10th of April, 1896, and that Gilbert Strong had threatened to commit such act. The evidence connecting Gilbert with the burning of the barn and stable, was at most only suspicious, and insufficient to support a conviction, in our judgment. Wherefore the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and a new trial granted."
In Luker v. State, 14 So. 259, the court speaking through Judge COOPER: "We find no error of law in this record, but are constrained to hold, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and its approval by the learned judge before whom the trial was had, that the evidence is not sufficiently strong to uphold the conviction. The evidence is wholly circumstantial, and consists of the facts that there was no good feeling existing between the appellant and the owner of the cotton pen burned, by whom appellant had been prosecuted as a defaulting road hand; that some threats had been made by the appellant to get even with him, and also tracks about the size of appellant's were found around the pen when it was burned, which tracks were followed to the public road leading towards appellant's house and some distance along the road in that direction. But motive alone is not proof of crime, and we think it impossible to say that the evidence as a whole does more than raise a suspicion of appellant's guilt. Reversed."
Rufus Creekmore, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The testimony here which connects the appellant with the commission of the offense may be briefly recapitulated as follows: 1. The bad feeling between the appellant and Mr. Shows which culminated in the making of threats by the appellant. 2. His efforts to get another person to assist him in the burning of the barn. 3. The tracks which were made by him to the rear of the barn where the fire started. 4. The testimony of the bloodhounds who were put on the trail at the source of the criminal agency and their following this trail, to the defendant. This certainly is sufficient to show that this defendant was the guilty party.
The appellant, Lorenz Holloman, was indicted and convicted of the crime of arson, and was sentenced to serve a term of one year in the Industrial Training School.
The essential facts of the case are that, on the night of November 1, 1928, the barn of Rolan Shows, a farmer, was destroyed by fire, which fire was discovered by Mr. Shows about two o'clock in the morning. At the time the fire was discovered, the barn had burned to such extent that it, together with its contents, the live stock and farming implements, were destroyed.
At the time of the fire, Mr. Shows had insurance in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars, and afterwards collected one thousand one hundred fifty dollars of said insurance.
At the time of the fire, his wagon, his automobile, and one of his mules, named Maud, were not in the barn. The wagon was loaded with pine knots, his son was off on a trip in the automobile, and the mule was in the pasture.
There was no effort on the part of the state to show any unusual noise or circumstance connected with its burning, or just how the barn caught on fire.
The appellant was a tenant on Shows' farm. He lived in a house about sixty yards from the barn, on the opposite side of the road. There was some trouble between Shows and the appellant, or the appellant's father, with reference to the right of the father of appellant to remove some peas. A witness testified that, on Monday before the fire, appellant said to him that he was "going to burn the house or barn of Mr. Shows in order to get even," that Shows had beat him out of his crop, and that appellant attempted to get him to aid him in the burning of the house or barn.
At the time of the fire, appellant's father had moved from Shows' land, and was living at another place. On the night of the fire, the property of appellant's father (consisting of a horse, a cow and calf, a buggy and harness), which was usually kept in the barn, was not in the barn, but was in the lot somewhere.
The evidence shows that the fire originated in the rear of the west end of the barn; that there were some tracks there, made by a person wearing a peculiar shoe, run over on the side, and a worn place in the center of the sole. Bloodhounds followed this track for about two miles, then lost it; picked it up again, then followed it into the village of Ovette, where the trail was lost at the colored waiting room of the railroad station. There was ample testimony that the track found near the rear of the barn compared favorably with the shoe track made by the defendant, of the shoes which the defendant had on when he was arrested.
After the defendant was arrested, he was carried to the home of Mr. Shows, and was, by the sheriff, led around through a group of perhaps one hundred persons, and then the dogs were turned loose. They followed that trail to within ten or fifteen feet of the defendant, when they were called off by their owner. This testimony was not objected to.
The defendant offered an alibi as his defense. He showed by several witnesses that he went to his grandfather's home about four o'clock in the afternoon of the day before the fire, and thereafter rode to the home of Will Strickland, nine miles from the scene of the fire, with his grandfather and several others; that he remained at Will Strickland's home that night, went to bed, and slept in bed with two male relatives; that he was aroused about three or three thirty o'clock in the morning, ate breakfast with the family, and assisted in loading the furniture of Will Strickland, with a view of moving it.
The appellant testified that, on Sunday morning, before the fire, he exchanged shoes with the witness who testified to the threats, and that the shoes he was wearing when the sheriff arrested him were the shoes received by him in exchange with the witness. He further testified that he lived fifty or sixty yards from the barn of Mr. Shows, and that he frequently went all over his place. The dogs did not trail to him from the scene of the crime, and, although the dogs were carried to his father's home, they did not trail him there.
The evidence in the case is wholly insufficient to sustain the verdict. Circumstance for circumstance, such as is urged by the owner of the barn against the defendant, might be urged against the owner, if, indeed, the barn was set fire to or burned by criminal agency.
Reversed and remanded.